IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Present;
Mr. Justice Amjad
Ali Sahito
Cr. Bail Appln. No. S – 406 of 2021
Applicants : Muhammad
Sadique, Angan, both sons
of Muhammad Yakoob,
Jeyo S/o Kareem Dino, Khameeso S/o Allah Dino, Lal Dino
S/o Jeeand and Jeand S/o Mevo Khan all by caste Phulpoto Through
Mr. Shafique Ahmed Khan Leghari
Advocate
Complainant : Mst. Farzana
Through Syed
Muhammad Ali Shah Advocate
Respondent
: The
State
Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the
State
Dated
of hearing: 23.08.2021
Date of
order : 23.08.2021
O R D E R
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J – Through
this bail application, the applicants/accused seek pre-arrest bail in Crime No.88
of 2021 registered at Police Station Rohri, District Sukkur for offences punishable under Section 452, 147, 148,
114, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 504, 506/2, 427 PPC. The bail plea of the applicants/accused
has been declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Sukkur
vide order dated 25.06.2021.
2. The details
and particulars of the FIR are already available in the bail application and
FIR, therefore same could be gathered from the copy of FIR attached with such
application, hence need not to reproduce the same hereunder.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicants/accused contended that the applicants/accused are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due
to enmity over the property as the applicants/accused had purchased a plot from
the husband of the complainant and possession was handed over to the applicants
and they started construction of house and from time to time demanded
registration of the sale deed always the complainant party kept them on false
hopes and ultimately the complainant party illegally occupied the said house of
the applicants/accused and on the contrary the complainant has lodged a false
FIR; that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of three (03) days in
lodgment for the FIR; that all the Sections are bailable
exception Section 506/2 PPC; that the alleged offence does not fall within the
prohibitory clause of sub-Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C;
that the interim challan of the case has been
submitted by the police and the applicants/accused are no more required for
further enquiry. He lastly prayed for confirmation of the interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to the applicants/accused.
4. Learned
counsel for the complainant and learned DPG for the State prayed for dismissal
of instant bail application by contending that the names of the applicants/accused
are specifically mentioned in the FIR with the role that they actively
participated in the commission of the offence by causing multiple injuries to
injured / complainant Mst. Farzana
and Mukhtiar Ali, therefore, the applicants/accused
are vicariously liable for the offence, as such they do not deserve for the
concession of bail.
5. I have
heard the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, learned counsel for the
complainant and DPG for the State and perused the record. From the perusal of
the record, it appears that all the Sections applied in the instant case are bailable except Section 506/2 PPC, and it is yet be
determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses whether the applicants/accused have issued threats to the complainant
and witnesses of dire-consequences or not? Further the injured Mukhtiar Ali has sustained five injuries, caused by minor
sharp cutting object, whereas, in the FIR the complainant Mst.
Farzana has stated that the applicants/accused were
having lathies and weapons at the time of incident. The
injuries sustained by injured Mukhtiar Ali have been
declared by the Senior Medical Officer, Taluka
Hospital Rohri as punishable under Section 337-F(ii) PPC, which carries maximum punishment upto 03 years. In the circumstances, learned counsel for
the applicants/accused has succeeded to make-out a case for grant of pre-arrest
bail in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the instant bail application is allowed and the interim pre-arrest
bail already granted to the applicants/accused by this Court vide dated
30.06.2021 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
6. The
observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not prejudice
the case of either party at the trial.
Judge
ARBROHI